< March 1 March 3 >

March 2


Template:RTÉ programming

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, but potentially replace with smaller category specific templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RTÉ programming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is too big. It overlaps both List of programmes broadcast by RTÉ and the category tree of Category:Irish television programmes. It seems to include every RTÉ programme that happens to have an article, thus including some mainly recent ephemera and omitting much mainly older programming. I suggest the larger sublists can be made into templates for the relevant subsets of articles and this unwieldy behemoth be deleted. Other ways of creating useful summary info might be cross-dividing the category tree by broadcaster, or turning the list page into a multi-column table. There's no hope for this Template jnestorius(talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Filmyear

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete once the transclusions have been removed. RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filmyear (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template creates a piped link to years-in-film articles, such as [[2010 in film|2010]]. Piping links in such a fashion has been deprecated for quite some time, so this template just plain shouldn't exist. (Note that the template is locked, so I can't tag it.) Any transclusions can easily be removed with AWB; as a Mac user, I can't run it, but can easily ask a friend to remove transclusions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rating-big

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rating-big (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant of ((Rating)). Either integrate this template's functionality into that one, or delete; there is no circumstance where this one is necessary versus ((Rating)). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Campaignbox War on Terror

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox War on Terror (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Well, I created this one, but if you see the talk page it has been the subject of much controversy. Now I realize it is in fact WP:SYNTH, perfect for adding foolishnesses into it. DAI (Δ) 14:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I guess not, since there were many other significant contributors. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, this template causes too much disputes. Qajar (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox nursing org

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete per T2 as a well advertised prod for an orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox nursing org (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, superfluous to any of various generic infobox templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Oldafdfull

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oldafdfull (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

subset of the superior and backwards-compatible ((oldafdmulti)). Requesting redirect there. (Note: template is fully protected, so TfD message hasn't been added to transclusions.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WeightedMedalRow

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WeightedMedalRow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Designed for use in a weighted Olympic medal table, these tables are at best giving undue weight to a not widely supported system and at worst original research, particularly as the weightings seem to be chosen entirely at the whim of a single user. As such they have no place on wikipedia. Basement12 (T.C) 09:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WeightedMedalTable

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WeightedMedalTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The idea of a weighted Olympic medal table is at best giving undue weight to a not widely supported system and at worst original research, particularly as the weightings seem to be chosen entirely at the whim of a single user. As such these tables have no place on wikipedia. Basement12 (T.C) 09:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I’m the author of ((WeightedMedalRow)) and ((WeightedMedalTable)). Any resolution should be applied to both templates equally. Also note previous discussion in Talk:2010 Winter Olympics medal table.
The three weightings are the ones described in Olympic medal table. Personally, I would favor 5:3:2, but wouldn’t include it since it hasn’t been attested outside WP. So I’m flexible which weighting(s) to use besides 1:1:1 (= Total). I have also proposed to add code to common.js which makes it possible to hide the columns by default, the template is already prepared for that.
I have to admit, though, that the major maintainers of Olympic statistics don’t seem to be to keen on using these templates. If they cannot be convinced in due course, these templates are moot. The major point ofthese templates is that it has no predefined rank in contrast to ((RankedMedalTable)) (and ((RankedMedalRow))) since the IOC does not really support such strong ranking of nations/NOCs.
I have not checked whether other articles on different sports and events would be likely to use these templates (perhaps in a slightly modified form). — Christoph Päper 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:GA-icon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete, but some consensus to potentially "redirect" to ((Classicon|GA)). Unfortunately, since WP does not currently have a (({0))} parameter, this would mean redirecting to ((Classicon/GA)), and having ((Classicon/GA)) call ((Classicon|GA)). I would encourage technical discussions about the feasibility/desirability of such a "redirection" to continue. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GA-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, can be easily replaced by ((Classicon|GA)) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the same reason it is deprecated, my guess is. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. But I'm pretty sure it's a good one. :D
There must have been at least some discussion before the deprecation. I don't believe that it was a hasty decision. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they were superseded into one template to make management easier and to also make updating easier if the case was to arise. And if iirc WPBannerMeta uses it to simplfy coding. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 04:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Source

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and superseded by ((Onlinesource)). Only ~50 transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please orphan it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before this template can be deleted, it must be replaced with the new one on all the pages that use it.--Sum (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Shban

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete both Magioladitis (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shban (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, ~90 transclusions. Superseded by ((infobox road small)) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – oppose deleting this template at this time. The template isn't a one for one conversion as the new template has different parameters than the old one. Once all of the transclusions are converted, then I'll support deletion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support after transclusions fixed. Per nom and Imzadi1979. Honestly, I thought this template had already come to TfD. --Fredddie™ 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace all instances with ((infobox road small)) then delete. ---Dough4872 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A template based on this, Template:Wisban (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) should be included with this discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just went through and converted all uses of shban to infobox road small for the Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Woo pig soooooooie! 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As of 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC), all existing article transclusions of ((shban)) have been changed to use ((infobox road small)). The single remaining transclusion comes from ((wisban)), which calls this template and is also not currently transcluded on any articles. --LJ (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Usban

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. All uses have been updated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usban (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, ~40 transclusions. Superseded by ((infobox road small)) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – oppose deleting this template at this time. The template isn't a one for one conversion as the new template has different parameters than the old one. Once all of the transclusions are converted, then I'll support deletion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support after transclusions fixed. Per nom and Imzadi1979. --Fredddie™ 20:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace all instances with ((infobox road small)) then delete. ---Dough4872 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As of 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC), all existing transclusions of this template have been changed to use ((infobox road small)).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Imagemap

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imagemap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superceded by File namespace. While its almost 500 transclusions seems daunting, most (all?) of them are really in about 60 other templates. Replacement should be fairly straightforward and simple, all things considered. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I literally don't know more than you. 1.) The template is deprecated, 2.) File namespace has some similar (if not identical function), and 3.) the template is not used anywhere except a handful of userpages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No article at present. That's no to say it won't be used in future. Maybe there aren't enough links to it to inform a wider audience of its greater functionality.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is deprecated; that's why it was nominated for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the positive reinforcement Justin. After reading Xenos comment I looked over the template again and there is some functionality that is not well documented but is intriguing. The standard image functionality does not include everything this template is capable of although it would take sometime to understand what is going on. I change my opinion to keep. The reason for deprecation does not stand. –droll [chat] 04:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<div style="position: fixed; left:1; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; ">
((Imagemap
 | image   = FlagRevsNo.png
 | width   = 180px
 | link    = Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions
 | Alt     = No to censorship!
 | tooltip = No to censorship!
 | desc    = none
))
</div>
<div style="position: fixed; left:1; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; ">
[[Image:FlagRevsNo.png|size=180px|link=Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions|Alt=No to censorship!|No to censorship!]]
</div>

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cleanup-tags

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-tags (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This really doesn't seem like a useful template. If an article has many cleanup templates on it, that's obvious to anyone who comes across it; adding another template won't help matters much. I suppose it could be used to find articles with many templates on them, but ((Articleissues)) does that job better. Robofish (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More